Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040007032026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : BA/40/2026 Md Shahabuddin permanent resident of H No. 649, Mohammadpur Ahir Ward 13, PO and PS Mohammadpur Ahir, Mewat District, Haryana. VERSUS The State of AP represented through the PP of AP Advocate for the Petitioner : Muk Pertin, Senior Advocate, Mukbang Pertin,Takom Pabin,Dakjum Riba,Tam Lomdak,K Tayeng Advocate for the Respondent : P P of AP, Linked Case : BA/41/2026 Md Shahabuddin Age: 56 Occupation : Address:permanent resident of H No. 649 Mohammadpur Ahri Ward 13 PO and PS Mohammadpur Ahri Mewat District Haryana. VERSUS The State of AP Age: 0 Page No.# 2/6 Occupation : Address:represented by the PP of AP ------------ Advocate for : Muk Pertin Senior Advocate Advocate for : P P of AP appearing for The State of AP: Advocate appearing for respectively. -BEFORE- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 08.06.2026 Heard Mr. M. Pertin, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. T. Pabin, learned counsel for the accused and Ms. L.Hage, learned Addl. PP for the State. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 praying for grant of regular bail to the accused persons, namely, Shahrukh Khan & Mohd Hashim, who are behind bars since 18.10.2025 and 19.12.2025, respectively in connection with Aalo P.S. Case No. 59/2025 registered under Section 324 (3)/324 (4)/324 (5)/331 (4)/305 (e)/ 62 of BNS, 2023. 3. Both these bail applications are taken up together and disposed of by this common order, as the same are arising out of same cause of action in connection with Aalo P.S. Case No.59/2025 registered under Section 324 (3)/324 (4)/324 (5)/331 (4)/305 (e)/ 62 of BNS, 2023. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the accused that Annexure-4 of both the bail applications clearly reveal that the Arrest Memo depicts that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the accused persons and the Page No.# 3/6 column is blank. Annexure-5 of both the applications clearly depict that the reasons of arrest has been communicated to the accused but the grounds of arrest has not been communicated to the accused. The reasons of arrest are reflected hereinbelow:- “You are hereby informed of your arrest in connection with the below referred case /circumstances. The case is non-bailable to Police and for the proper investigation of the case your custody at Police is required. But you are informed that you may seek bail in the jurisdictional Court as per law”. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the accused that it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabir Purkyastha-vs-State (NCT of Delhi); reported in (2024) 8 SCC 254, that :- “29. Hence, we have no hesitation in reiterating that the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest or the grounds of detention in writing to a person arrested in connection with an offence or a person placed under preventive detention as provided under Articles 22(1) and 22(5) of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct and cannot be breached under any situation. Non-compliance of this constitutional requirement and statutory mandate would lead to the custody or the detention being rendered illegal, as the case may be”. “30. Furthermore, the provisions of Article 22(1) have already been interpreted by this Court in Pankaj Bansal(supra) laying down beyond the pale of doubt that the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the person arrested of an offence at the earliest. Hence, the fervent plea of learned ASG that there was no requirement under law to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing to the accused appellant is noted to be rejected”. “48. It may be reiterated at the cost of repetition that there is a significant difference in the phrase ‘reasons for arrest’ and ‘grounds of arrest’. The ‘reasons Page No.# 4/6 for arrest’ as indicated in the arrest memo are purely formal parameters, viz., to prevent the accused person from committing any further offence; for proper investigation of the offence; to prevent the accused person from causing the evidence of the offence to disappear or tempering with such evidence in any manner; to prevent the arrested person for making inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Investigating Officer. These reasons would commonly apply to any person arrested on charge of a crime whereas the ‘grounds of arrest’ would be required to contain all such details in hand of the Investigating Officer which necessitated the arrest of the accused. Simultaneously, the grounds of arrest informed in writing must convey to the arrested accused all basic facts on which he was being arrested so as to provide him an opportunity of defending himself against custodial remand and to seek bail. Thus, the ‘grounds of arrest’ would invariably be personal to the accused and cannot be equated with the ‘reasons of arrest’ which are general in nature”. 6. I find substance in the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the alleged accused persons. The reasons of arrest have been communicated to the alleged accused persons in writing but the grounds of arrest have not been communicated to the alleged accused persons. 7. On the other hand, Ms. L. Hage, learned Addl. PP has raised serious objection stating that the alleged accused persons are habitual offenders. It is also submitted that the alleged accused persons have several criminal antecedents and the present case is a case of bank robbery, therefore, the alleged accused persons are not entitled for bail. It is further submitted that the grounds of arrest have been communicated to the accused persons and Annexure-5 clearly depicts that the accused persons have Page No.# 5/6 been communicated with the grounds of arrest in the manner which could be understood by the accused persons. 8. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. It is true that the both the accused have criminal antecedents. They have already been booked in several cases of similar nature. The accused, namely, Shahrukh Khan and Mohd Hashim are booked under Pasighat P.S. Case No. 56/2025, Roing P.S. Case No. 71/2025 and Pasighat P.S. Case No. 71/2025. 9. Although, it is submitted by the learned Addl. PP that record also reveals that the accused are booked in similar cases in the State of Assam; but as the investigating agency has not complied with the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabir Purkayastha (Supra), this Court deems it proper to release both the alleged accused persons on bail as their right to personal liberty has been infringed. 10. It appears that, if the accused persons are enlarged on bail under certain conditions, then the trial may not be adversely affected. 11. In view of the aforesaid observations and findings, the alleged accused persons, namely, Shahrukh Khan & Mohd Hashim are enlarged on bail in connection with Aalo P.S. Case No.59/2025 on execution of bail bond of Rs.50,000/- each, with 2 (local) sureties, one of which shall be a government surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Siang District, Aalo subject to the following conditions: Page No.# 6/6 (i) that accused persons shall make an endeavor to appear before the trial Court on each hearing day; (ii) that the accused persons shall refrain from such activities, with which, they have been alleged; and (iii) the accused person shall not exercise threats, tamper or hamper with the evidence. 12. On breach of any conditions, the Court is at liberty to cancel the bail granted to the alleged accused persons. 13. This bail applications stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant